RRF enters its final implementation phase, raising the question of what comes next for investment
The EU’s Recovery and Resilience Facility (RRF) has reached a major milestone, with 31 August marking the deadline for Member States to complete the reforms and investments included in their national recovery and resilience plans. Around €440 billion had been disbursed by that point, while up to a further €133 billion remains to be paid before the Facility closes at the end of 2026. Member States have until 30 September to submit their final payment requests, with the Commission required to complete payments by 31 December.

The approaching end of the RRF shifts attention from implementation towards what follows. The Facility was designed as a temporary response to the pandemic, but it subsequently became an important source of financing for investment in energy, digitalisation, infrastructure and economic modernisation. Its expiry therefore comes as the EU is simultaneously debating the next Multiannual Financial Framework and how to mobilise significantly more private investment through the Savings and Investments Union.
What this means for CEE markets: The transition is particularly relevant for Central and Eastern Europe, where EU funds have played an important role in supporting public investment and economic convergence. As the RRF winds down, the capacity of domestic financial systems to complement public funding will become increasingly important. Deeper capital markets, stronger institutional investment, bank financing and effective use of EIB and future EU instruments will all form part of the question of how the region sustains investment once the exceptional post-pandemic financing cycle ends.
Pensions move further into the Savings and Investments Union debate
The European Parliament’s ECON Committee has held exchanges on both the Pan-European Personal Pension Product (PEPP) and the review of the IORP framework, offering an early indication of how Parliament is approaching the role of pensions within the Savings and Investments Union.
On PEPP, there was broad support for reforms aimed at improving take-up while preserving national pension systems. EPP and Renew Europe stressed greater flexibility, portability and incentives for providers, while S&D placed greater emphasis on consumer protection, low costs, supervision and safeguards for existing public and occupational pension arrangements. Amendments are due by 21 September, with an ECON vote currently scheduled for 1 December.
The IORP discussion similarly revealed broad support for maintaining the diversity of national occupational pension systems. Rapporteur Damian Boeselager identified transparency, simplification and greater portfolio diversification among his priorities. At the same time, MEPs stressed that members’ interests should remain central and warned against directing pension assets towards particular investment objectives, including mandatory allocations to venture capital. Renew Europe and S&D also emphasised the importance of maintaining a minimum-harmonisation approach and sufficient flexibility for national systems.
What this means for CEE markets: The debate has particular significance for CEE because the depth and structure of funded pension systems vary substantially across the region. The broader EU objective of mobilising more long-term savings for productive investment therefore cannot translate into the same policy model everywhere. For countries with smaller institutional-investor bases and shallower capital markets, successful reform will depend not only on encouraging more pension saving but also on developing the domestic investment opportunities and market infrastructure capable of putting those savings to work.
New EBA and ESMA leadership puts simplification and supervisory integration in focus
Recent ECON hearings for the incoming leadership of the European Banking Authority and European Securities and Markets Authority highlighted two closely connected themes shaping the EU financial-services agenda: reducing unnecessary regulatory complexity while pursuing greater integration of European financial markets.
During his hearing for EBA Executive Director, Thomas Gstaedtner argued for simplification without deregulation, including greater proportionality for small and non-complex institutions, simpler reporting requirements and less duplication between national and European reporting.
Carlo Comporti, meanwhile, linked supervisory convergence to the effort to reduce fragmentation in European capital markets. While supporting a stronger role for ESMA where this can produce clear benefits, he also stressed subsidiarity and the importance of national supervisory expertise. He additionally identified technological change, including distributed-ledger technology and tokenisation, as an increasingly important part of ESMA’s agenda.
What this means for CEE markets: Both debates matter for smaller CEE financial markets. Greater harmonisation and simpler EU rules can reduce the fixed costs of operating across relatively small national markets, while more integrated supervision could make cross-border activity easier. At the same time, the emphasis on proportionality and national expertise is particularly important for markets where institutions, market structures and supervisory capacity can differ substantially from those of the EU’s largest financial centres.


